But Will! I thought you believe in liberty for all?! Doesn't a woman have the right to do what she wants with her body?

Hell yes, she does. But, as I believe in all cases, a woman's right to flail her arms ends at the tip of another's nose. Now, a child in her stomach is a child nonetheless (See next question). Therefore, as it is, her right to mess with her body ends the second she touches the fetus. She can't honestly say that the baby is her. It's not, it's another person, temporarily dependent on her. She has the right to do what she wants with herself, but where is the child's liberty if she kills it?

If the fetus isn't born yet, it isn't a life! Maybe abortion is wrong in the last [trimester, four months, etc], but at the beginning, we're talking about a bunch of cells! Come on!

It's a future life. Look at it this way. If the baby is never born, it won't have an effect on the world. It will never go to kindergarten, it will never experience success, failure, love or drugs. It will never graduate high school, it will never drop out of high school, it will never get hired, fired or promoted. It will never shoot the winning basket, miss the winning basket, or ride the bench. It will never experience an obstacle, it will never be overcome by an obstacle. It will not love, it will never be loved. It will never propose, it will never be proposed to, it will never marry, it will never file for divorce. It will never experience happiness or depression. It will never live, and perhaps most importantly, it will never change the life of another.

Long story short, it will not happen, it will not affect the world. That, in and of itself, is taking away a life. That's murder.

What about a baby that has a mental illness? That's such a hard thing for a parent and the child.

It is. But have you every seen a mentally ill child? That was a stupid question; I'm sure you have. But tell me that child isn't changing the world in some way, either positively or negatively. That child may not have the best life, but I'm sure it's better than death. Should we just not give him chance to live, based on some predetermined dividing line between 'good life' and 'bad life'? The child, regardless of diseases and disorders, should be given the liberty to make his or her impact on the world; to change the life of another in some way."A well-documented investigation has shown that there is no difference between handicapped and normal persons in their degree of life satisfaction, outlook of what lies immediately ahead, and vulnerability to frustration."Source.

What if the birth will kill the mother or child?

In a situation where, if no abortion takes place, both the mother and child will definitely die, I can't argue. This is a valid point, and in this case, and this case only, I understand the need for abortion. I have a feeling though, that this could be exploited. (Example: My mom will kill me if she hears about this.)

Let it also be known that this particular case of abortion accounts for only 1.5% (source) of all abortions (fetal and mother's health combined). This reason alone is truly not enough to allow abortion. (Basically, if you agree with all the other points, this one alone should not deter you from being pro life.) I do feel, however, it is enough to make an exception to the rule.

What about in cases of rape and incest? There is no possible way you can explain this one.

Rape is one of the most common arguing points for "pro choice" supporters. Unfortunately for their case, rape and incest together make up less than .5% of all abortions (source).

I understand the struggle and pain women go through when they are raped. I understand the idea that living for nine months with the child of a person's rapist in them is no easy task. I understand how this could motivate almost anyone to get an abortion. However, does nine months of pain and suffering counter a loss of somewhere around 75 years of life? Does being a victim of rape justify creating a victim of murder? I don't think so. I also understand most people would not want to live with this child for the rest of their lives. The answer is simple. Adoption. There is a notion that it is difficult to place a baby for adoption; no one will want him. This notion is quite the opposite of the truth, as there is a ratio of 35 couples competing for every one child placed for adoption (source), giving the mother an extensive selection of potential couples to choose from. In fact, so many couples never end up getting a child in this country that they go elsewhere (usually China and the Middle East) to adopt children.

But if you still don't think killing a baby in this situation is murder, Faith Daniels will tell you otherwise. She was a prominent CBS and NBC news anchor who is, in fact, the child of a rape victim, and she is now an active supporter of the National Council for Adoption.

You've already written a ridiculously long entry, and I think you have maybe covered about 2% of abortions. What are we missing?

You see, the issues you hear argued for and supported the most are the rarest of the rare cases. It needs to be understood that 98% of abortions come under the category of "personal choice" (source). These abortions are done for much less significant (while still serious) reasons than those listed above. They are done for reasons such as not wanting parents to find out, economic issues, personal feelings of immaturity and irresponsibility, poor parenting situations, adjusting one's life around the child, and least respectably, already having too many children. I understand all these issues, but they can be covered by one word. What is it?

Adoption.

One more case, if you are still doubtful:

There was a woman Pennsylvania who would be getting married in several months. She and her fiance were living together and the woman discovered she was pregnant. This was not an issue at the time, because the woman was planning on getting married. Unfortunately, though, her fiance became too distressed with the situation and didn't feel he was ready to get married and raise a child. The man left her, leaving the woman with a huge problem and obviously huge problem. The woman was left with only two financially possible options: have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption and wonder what happened to the child she never knew....

9 comments:

You know, Will, I'm going to have to say that I can't really argue with you. Count me as pro-life.

One question, do you think the federal gov't, state gov't, or any level of gov't has the right to control abortions? - I mean that was how Roe v. Wade was decided, right? The Constitution, in their eyes, didn't grant any power to the federal government to restrict abortions, nor did it give that power to the state governments. I'm not putting you down (trust me, I really want to be with you on this. Just let me know what you think.

As, in, does the government have the constitutional right to stop them? Because I don't think it's a question of being morally opposed/in favour to them, but it's a question of whether the Constitution grants that power to the federal or state govts. to stop them.

I would consider it murder; a crime charged in the same manner as murder. Clearly, the charges would be much less in terms of sentencing, but along the lines of how to deal with it, the procedures would be the same.

Most abortions are a result of pregnancy from casual sex. I am sure there is statistic on that somewhere that you could find. Ask any college campus nurse or doctor how many unplanned pregnancies they encounter every semester. When pregnancy occurs within a committed, loving, marital relationship, abortions rarely happen - even if the pregnancy was unplanned. The Catholic church preaches strongly against pre marital sex BECAUSE THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR LIFE. Anyone who is so against abortion surely would not endorse sex outside of marriage - right? You can't have it both ways or you sound hypocritical. PS....Birth control works some of the time NOT all of the time, as MANY people I know personally would tell you firsthand.

"In a situation where, if no abortion takes place, both the mother and child will definitely die, I can't argue."

I noticed how you said BOTH the mother and child. Just wondering, would you support an abortion if only the mother's life was in danger?

And also, your argument about potential life makes a lot of sense (and it was very well written by the way. I enjoyed reading it) but I think that the potential life argument is the reason why the abortion arguement will never result in agreement. The fact is, some people just aren't persuaded by the idea of potential life. First of all, there is ALWAYS the potential for life. Any woman has the potential to go get pregnant at any time and any man has the potential to go get someone pregnant at any time. I understand that once a fetus exists, the potential for life is greater, but it's still only potential and that doesn't persuade me because I don't believe that you can really miss potential life. If someone is dying of cancer, no one says, "oh I bet we killed the person who would have come up with a cure." People don't say to themselves, "Oh I bet that if those fetuses weren't killed I would have a best friend." People just don't have serious regrets in terms of potential life. If something never existed, how can you even know what to miss? You can fantasize about what people could have been, but I don't think that such fantasies could ever really bring about sincere feelings of loss. I don't expect you to agree with me on any of this because, as I said, I think that the potential life argument is the argument in which people just either beleive or do not beleive. I hope you can at least understand my opinion. I understand yours and I respect it. And of course the thought of you not existing is horrible. I'm so glad that that woman in pennsylvania did not get an abortion, and it makes me sad to think about not knowing you. But that is because I do know you. That is because you exist. You do not have the potential to exist, you are here. The fact is that if the woman in Pennsylvania had gotten an abortion, I would never know. There would be a lot of good times and laughs that I would never have had, I would not be writing this on your blog now, and I and many other people would not be the same. But, the fact is, none of us could possibly know what could have been and so we could not miss it.

It's an interesting idea, Nicole, and I do respect your opinion. But the thing is, whether or not you would know what you missed in my absence is irrelevant. The fact is, you wouldn't know me. I am here now. If my birthmother had an abortion, you would not. In the same way, if I had been murdered when I was twelve, you would not know me, either. You wouldn't miss it, you wouldn't know. But if someone had told you a little boy in Fairfield had been murdered some years ago, you would obviously condemn that action.

So what it comes down to, simply, is that people have the right to their life. They have the right to make their changes to the world, no matter how big or small. I would not have had that chance, and millions of are robbed of that opportunity every year. That would be, em, murder.

About Me

A political and news obsessed senior in high school who may think he's a bit older than than he is. I write for several local newspapers: I report for and have a column in the Fairfield Minuteman, and I write for the Register Citizen and Bridgeport Banner. I have also interned in the District Office of former Congressman Christopher Shays.

Endorsements:

"Young people love to think of themselves as rebels and nonconformists in their "liberal" outlook, but the truth is, any kid who leans right today is the real rebel and has to go against the grain to have such views. Please support those young men like Will who are willing to be different."